Necessary Evil

[SlowwHand]

Still like Kerry the best.
"Weird head" or not.

[Bosh]

The standard of living would be horrible.

How does the US losing face diplomatically have even the most remote connection to our standard of living. Don't see why you're so concerned with the US's international prestige/dominance.

[Dis]

In a perfect world we would all live as one nation. But I realize that is not possible.

I do commend anti-war people for their convictions. I understand their reasoning. That if we show the world how to be peaceful, the rest of the world will follow. Sadly I don't think the rest of the world will follow. They will continue to be militant and eventually they will remove the U.S. from power. This won't happen soon of course. But eventually it will happen.

And in the long term strategy. If we do let Iraq win, other nations will then take it a step further. Eventually this will lead to the downfall of the U.S. This would take 50 to 100 years though.

[badman]

First, I'd like to say that I loved Clinton.

Killing military is no better than killing civilians

If that would be the case, soldiers would be murderers.
I don't think that soldiers are murderers since they shoot their enemies in self-defence.

[Az]

so both sides shoot each other in self defence?

[Dis]

soldiers are murderers. They are paid to do a job. They are paid to kill the enemy. The goverment allow soldiers to kill people without retribution.

The military is a unique organization. I have known marines that want to kill people legally. And that is why they joined. They wanted to see "action".

Does this make them bad people? Human have certain instincts. And that is to protect what they hold dear. Some people do this more violently than others.

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Necessary Evil

Originally posted by Dissident
we are to remain an elite superpower or hyperpower, we cannot surrender diplomatically to nations like Iraq. Iraq has beaten us diplomatically. They have outsmarted us.

Which is a sad thing, considering the fact that Saddam Hussein has little friends in the world and the USA had a more or less working broad alliance before this conflict arising. More than that you DID surrender diplomatically to Iraq by withdrawing any effort to get UN support.

What anti-war protestors don't realize, is we can't always do the right thing. Our country has very little manufacturing. Our economy is based on service industries and telecommunications and such. It is very fragile. If we fall from grace we will be little better than Mexico. Canada would the the leading country of the americas. The standard of living would be horrible. The standard of living is already so bad in inner cities. I'd hate to see it worse. And no, socialism would not work on a nation this large. I beleive socialism can work on smaller nations. But on large nations such as Russia, and the U.S., it has problems.

Well, this is pure Macchiavellianism. I absolutely do understand and do realize like most people outside the US, that the American foreign policy is aming only to hold up the status quo and secure the economic and political domination of the US. Lamentably, many Americans seemingly either don't understand or they're cynical bastards like dissident. (I wouldn't use this terminology, but as dissident even admits himself that he is evil...)
We tend to despise criminals who seek to get an unjust advantage to the rest of society by, say, commiting a murder, but we rationally discuss it when nations come into play. What if someone here at Poly came here and said: "My father is just going to kill the family of a troublesome rowdy and rob their poor belongings and I'm fine with it because that's the only way we can keep our standard of living."
We would be shocked, SHOCKED and people would write petitions to MarkG to ban dissident.
Yet, because we're talking about nations, we don't do it - it's a valid stance. We are all cold blooded.
Thank you, dissident, for telling us. You are really an evil person and a murderer in my eyes, and you're at honestly sharing it with us. Which doesn't make you better though.

There is no way to justify that.

Yes, that's how it is and it simply shows that you have no moral, and contrary to others here, I don't think your point of view is "Interesting".
You're a criminal and a cynic, you want to hold the rest of the world in poverty so the US can prosper. It's the exact way, most people in US foreign politics since 1945 have pursued. Installing dictatorships to everywhere to hold back Communism, breaking democratic movements against exploitation in Latin America, supporting extremist muslims in many countries, including Afghanistan and Iran, so commies wouldn't gain power there,
sending WOMD to Saddam in the 80s, the Taliban in the 90s.
Let the whole world blood dry, so US can keep their hegemony.

Now if someone thinks, that's all bad-as$ leftist propaganda, he's a poor sod, and I will continue to spend my little time to persuade him that he's wrong - he might not be a bad person, just someone who doesn't understand.

Or let's say I'm wrong and it IS only propaganda and it has all been done for the sake of humanity and democracy. Even then, dissident would remain a sick bastard, because of doing it out of cynical motives.
I'm against the Iraq war, yet I still hate Chirac, because his anti-war stance has also only cynical motivations.

We're sick, if we think it's "interesting" that dissident believes holding up the US dominance alone should be worth a mass-murder - for he himself calls the war "injust". Dissident has understood it, so it's interesting that he shares his thoughts with us, yet his opinion is not interesting, but only sick.

I'm the last one who would argue that it's possible to act 100% morally in order to move along or to reach a good goal, but the goal must be worth it (what actually makes me partially a Macchiavellian). Democracy might be, human rights might be, but US dominance is not.

[Dis]

I'm sorry. But I have lost faith in the U.N. being diplomatic in the fairest sense. If the U.N. was effective, Iraq would be disarmed by now and none of this would be necessary.

[Dis]

I said I'm evil

So that makes me a criminal?

Liberals seem to make connections that aren't really there. Your logic is flawed and therefore I disregard your unintelligent reasoning.

You implied that because I support the war, and that war is evil, and I admitted I'm evil that I'm a murderer?

I have never murdered anyone.

You are completely off base. I will ignore your comments in this thread for lack of logical reasoning.

[HershOstropoler]

"If we do let Iraq win, other nations will then take it a step further."

Oh, North Korea is running ahead of schedule?

[Dis]

I'm going to close my thoughts on this thread with this:

I'm what you call a darwinist. I believe in survival of the fittest above all else.

Goverment and society are only in place for practical reasons. As it is in our own self interests to form these to ensure our own survival. Thusly, anarchy is not in our interests.

Consequently, I do not truelly believe I'm evil. I only admitted it because in the broad definition by most people, I am evil.

But to be a true darwinist. There is no good and evil. Just survival.

[Wernazuma III]

Complicity in murder then, which is also a crime.
You labeled the war as injust, labeled the killing even of soldiers as injust (what I wouldn't) and yet you want it to happen.

You personally said that US dominance and economy (and nothing else) is worth a war in which hundreds of thousands will die. Killing for egoistic motives against international law - surely cynical and criminal- period.

[Shi Huangdi]

Nice post Dissident. You do a good job of cutting to the heart of the matter, and you are right that we can not lose in anyway to Iraq or their European sympathizers. I hardly think supporting war in this case makes you evil dissident, because (hopefully) we will be doing a good thing in this war by getting rid of a horribly evil dicator and replacing him with something better. Yes, war is still bad in itself, but freedom is won through war.

[Dis]

international law?

Can someone post that here? Because I was unaware that we are violating it.

To further clarify my motivations. In D & D terms I would be classified as lawful neutral or lawful evil. I do not believe in breaking the law.

But I do believe in survival of the fittest.

[Wernazuma III]

Attacking a sovereign nation without being attacked yourself and without UN approval is breaking International
law.http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php

A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. It requires the United States to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N. Charter empowers only the Security Council to authorize the use of force, unless a member state is acting in individual or collective self-defense. Iraq has not attacked this country, or any other country in the past 11 years. None of Iraq’s neighbors have appealed to the Security Council to protect them from an imminent attack by Iraq, because they do not feel threatened.